Accident today...am I going to get screwed?

[NeilMcduck]

So I was involved in an accident today and I'm trying to get an idea of what my insurance company is going to say to me when they call me back tomorrow so that I'm prepared.

Here's the scenario:

I was heading North on a 4 lane road, in the rightmost lane. (Danforth Rd @ Kennedy for T.O. folk). In the lane beside me and about a car's length ahead there was a minivan. We were both doing about 60 km/h.

Now, heading south in the lane closest to the middle of the road, was a taxi cab. For some reason, the taxi driver decided to swerve into the left, northbound lane. The van & taxi hit--causing the van to bounce back into my lane, right in front of me (facing sideways). I didn't have time to stop smashed right into the van.

All 3 vehicles are write offs. The cab driver was charged with careless driving.

I've been reading the "Fault Rules" for accidents (http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Regs/English/900668_e.htm ), but they all seem for very straight forward accidents--mine is a little more complicated.

I have a horrible feeling that I am going to be declared partially at fault because I ran into a car in front of me; even though it was clearly knocked there by the cabby...

Any insurance adjusters out there who'd care to offer some free advice?

[NeilMcduck]

By the way, nobody was seriously hurt (thankfully)...I've just got a sore hand from the airbag and some neck/shoulder pain.

[tkyoshi]

Well i'm not an adjuster but by the sounds of it you are not at fault at all cause the taxi hit the van which caused the van to slide into your lane.

I mean if the van was sideways, there was nothing the van could do either.

Glad to hear no one was hurt, were there any witnesses? In addition since the taxi hit the van first the driver of the van would basically be on your side since you both did not cause the accident. It was not the vans fault that he came into your lane which puts full blame on the taxi.

[dgs]

Glad to hear you are ok - I am not a loss adjuster either but my guess is the insurers will want to get as many people at fault as possible so they can push up as many premiums as possible. The taxi driver is obviously 100% at fault. The van driver is the one I would be worried for - if they take it as two incidents, he was not at fault when he was struck by the taxi, but an adjuster could try to argue that there was then a separate incident (since nothing else in the rules cover this otherwise) where he side swiped you by entering your lane - leaving the van 100% at fault. That could leave the van 50% at fault under the rules (I know - stupid logic but then who ever said the no-fault rules made sense?). I cannot see how you could be held at fault if you hit him side on in the way you describe. That said, I would be careful to ensure you get it clear from the insurers what they propose to do - the people who pay out your claim are not necessarily the ones who decide on the question of fault btw - there is an appeals process I believe if you disagree with their decision.

[NeilMcduck]

Thanks for the replies.

Just to clarify...when the van was knocked in front of me, it didn't really "sideswipe" my car--it hit the taxi and was knocked backwards into my lane so that I hit the rear of the van on the driver's side. Here are the final resting positions of all the cars:

taxi: southbound side of the road, facing South-East - diagonal across both lanes

van: northbound side of the road, facing almost directly west - across both lanes

me: northbound side of the road, facing north - fully in the right lane

[dark169]

You wont be at fault, the other cars where not in your lane so theres no obligation when it comes to following to close or anything like that.

[gman]

You wont be at fault, the other cars where not in your lane so theres no obligation when it comes to following to close or anything like that.

I don't think so too because the van was not in front of you until the accident happened in split seconds. You were not in 'follow too close' catagory.

[D-Sisive]

i would say the taxi cab is 100% and you and the van are 0%

you and the van will go after the taxi's insurance

reason is the taxi crossed into oncoming traffic lane and thats 100% taxi fault

van got hit and was pushed into your lane and you hit him cause he basically came into your lane and you couldnt avoid it

the van has the excuse saying its not his fault cause he was right of way and the taxi crossed the opposite line lane and hit him forcing him to lose control and the van to automatically be pushed into your lane

if some bs came up like oh you were in the blindspot of the van, dont accept it, its not illegal to be in anyones blind spot (cause lots of ppl are in others blind spot when its moving traffic) and you werent following too close since you werent directly behind him but beside him

stupid taxi probably decided to pull a U to pick up someone

[DVDManiac]

Doesn't sound like you should be faulted for anything...if insurance company does make up something to fault you, take them to court. What the heck were you supposed to do in that situation anyways?!? Also, don't sign any papers for your injuries...car accident injuries can show up weeks later, I know of many people where they started having pains well after their accident. However minor the injuries you have right now, tell the adjuster when you see him/her.

[lexus]

Nice to hear you did't get hurt badly.
Sound like the police report already identified 'careless driving' and they (police and insurance) will share the same information when they handle the claim. You should be fine.

1 thing please do as soon as possible is. Talk to your doctor and arrange for a checkup. You mentioned about neck or back pain. And my experience was, these type of pain could stay there for a long time and you may not even aware at this time. Have it check out as details as possible. Talk to your insurance firm or lawyer to seek legal advise on accident claim.

[dgs]

Definitely get your back etc checked out - remember OHIP does not cover much re physio, chiro etc.

The careless driving charge means nothing btw - unless the taxi driver was also charged with impaired (at which point the insurers could just apply common law and override the std rules entirely.) They might apply common law anyway because strictly speaking your scenario does not fit into any of the standard descriptions - that is the catch all in the rules.

The rules make interesting reading if you have never looked at them btw - they disregard at what point on each vehicle they impacted, the weather conditions, road conditions etc. They also ignore things like whether anybody signalled then changed their mind. Next time somebody indicates they are turning right into the side road you are pulling out of think very carefully before pulling out in front of them - if they change their mind at the last minute and plough into you, you are at fault regardless.

[NeilMcduck]

It's funny you should mention the fault rules as reading material...After reading them last night, I kept running through all the scenarios in my head on the way to/from work today.

In a way, they're beneficial because they're 100% objective. There's no negotiating the rules-it's impossible to play 'favourites'.

On the other hand, this cut and dry objectiveness opens up the possibility of someone having to share fault when there was very little they could have done to avoid the accident (side swipe rule = 50/50, for example).

My family doctor isn't in town; will a walk in clinic be able to give the same diagnosis? I told the adjuster about the pain & went into one of those clinics that specialize in accidents, but they seemed more interested in getting the insurance pay out so I'd like to have someone who isn't going to profit take a look at me...

[dgs]

My favorite scenario is the "you are turning left, psycho behind cannot wait and pulls out and decides to overtake you" version - you are 25% at fault (yes you should check your mirror, but do you have eyes in the back of your head if he pulls out as you are making the turn?) IMHO this book should be part of the G1 written rather than the whole section on demerit points - demerit points are one thing - at fault claims are another!!

I would try a walk in clinic if you cannot get to a family doctor (YMMV tho) - you will probably need a referal to get properly checked out. You might want to talk with the insurers before you go ahead to make sure you know what they need in terms of documentation - ie do they need a referal note from a doctor as well as the chiropractor's or other specialist's assessment ?